In most countries where people speak Russian, citizens do not trust the police. The police are unable to prevent theft or murder. They do not pursue thieves but are involved in politics instead. The police do not maintain law and order.
At the same time, we are constantly being told from every corner about how bad and vile people are. Just look at what’s being poured into your brain—it’s all negativity about humanity: from movie plots to news stories. And because people are shameless scoundrels, we need a government to keep an eye on legality. Right…
In fact, we see that the state does not protect the people from criminals, yet crime does not flourish. So what is happening? Perhaps people are actually good and there are very few bad ones? That is indeed the case. But this article is not about whether people are good; it is about how the state deliberately pits people against each other. So that people fear their neighbor rather than the monster in power.
Social psychologist Muzafer Sherif is known for his experiment with children, where he created two groups of kids that eventually began to compete against each other. He called this the “Realistic Conflict Theory” and gained a lot of attention for it. However, there is one “but.” This was actually his second experiment. In the first experiment, the groups of children refused to fight each other, and even when the researchers tried to pit them against one another, they still returned to cooperation and realized that they were being manipulated.
In the second experiment, Muzafer Sherif, in addition to classic methods of inciting conflict (such as obviously unfair judging in competitions), used assistants who played the roles of “pioneer leaders” to inform the children thatThey need to be wary of the second group.possiblydue to a contagious disease. He alsolimited contactsbetween groups, so that the groupswe haven’t communicated or seen each othereach other. And voilà, the experiment was a “success.” The children’s teams began to conflict, rob each other, and destroy each other’s property. Notice, they were destroying, not appropriating. Although Muzafer Sherif’s theory, supported by this experiment, states that conflicts arise in the struggle for limited resources. So if they are limited, why destroy them instead of appropriating them? But never mind. That’s not the point.
The point is that out of the entire range of anti-epidemic measures, the government chose the most “Muzaferov” ones.
- “Beware of those around you.”
- “Cover your face.”
- “Reduce contacts”
- “Don’t shake hands.”
It’s written on every bottle that antiseptics do not kill the coronavirus—antiseptics are for bacteria. Not a single bottle has a label claiming to protect against the coronavirus, even though that would have been a strong marketing move in the midst of widespread panic. And it’s true, if we could eliminate viruses with alcohol, there wouldn’t be AIDS.
It was proven back in the spring of 2020 that the virus is not transmitted through contact, and there are articles on this topic. It’s also well known that the virus is hardly transmitted “from hands to mouth or eyes.” But still, no handshakes!
It has long been known that the virus doesn’t care what kind of cloth you have on your face (it won’t be stopped by anything less than a real gas mask). But you keep covering your faces from each other. We might even tell you about the microdroplets that the cloth can catch. Probably. But microdroplets can be as small as they want. There is no “minimum droplet size” for it to be stopped by a mask.
Anyone who is familiar with statistics can divide the number of daily infections by the population of their country and understand that the probability of contracting the virus from a specific random person rarely exceeds 2 per thousand. This is comparable to the likelihood of dying in a car accident over the course of a year. Yet, we need to be wary of those around us and limit our contacts.
Any resident of Ukraine or Russia will confirm that the epidemic progressed as it would, infecting at least a third of the population (antibodies were found in a third of people from a random sample). This means that all the measures described above did not help and would not have helped in the fight against the epidemic.
What is all this about? It’s about the fact that instead of a swift and decisive fight against the epidemic, the authorities took the opportunity to further atomize society and desocialize people. They made them see each other as enemies and beg the benevolent ruler to restore order and justice. Checkmate, society. Muzafer Sherif approves.
Do you want another cherry on top? We are being scared by alarming statistics showing that the mortality rate (the number of deaths per 1,000 population) has been rising in 2020-2021. But they aren’t telling us the whole truth. In countries where mortality is increasing, it has been on the rise since 2010—this is the mortality of aging baby boomers, the post-war generation, people who were born in unusually large numbers after the war and who are now, unfortunately, reaching the end of their lives. In other words, the trend is continuing. However, the other part of the truth is that there are also countries where mortality is decreasing compared to previous years.
I am not a COVID idiot. I do not deny the existence of the virus, its severe consequences, the need for mass vaccination, reasonable safety measures, or the presence of excess mortality (though within the trend). At the same time, gentlemen, we are being deceived and pitted against each other. Look around to see for yourselves.